Well, unfortunately, we'll never know since she died only a year after the divorce. But I would assume that she still would have been invited to things since her relationship with Prince Charles and The Queen was very good at the time of her passing.

Well, she wasn't at Royal Ascot, the Trooping of the Color, etc. during 1997, was she? Those events occurred prior to her death. Of course, it's also possible that she was invited, but did not attend, since she was moving away from those types of formal appearances.

Well, she wasn't at Royal Ascot, the Trooping of the Color, etc. during 1997, was she? Those events occurred prior to her death. Of course, it's also possible that she was invited, but did not attend, since she was moving away from those types of formal appearances.

Diana told Ingrid Seward in an interview a few months before her death that she was happy with less formality and protocol and felt free.

Actually yes. She lost the title "The Princess of Wales". She was no longer a princess at the time of her death. There can be only one "The Princess of Wales" and it is Charles' wife or widow until the time that another Prince of Wales is created and has a wife. It is possible, although not completely accurate, to explain the unique "title" Diana, Princess of Wales using the latter as a form of surname.

IMHO her complete name would have been according to the rules governing the names, titles and styles of the peerage and their families:

Her style: Lady (derived from her father as she was the daughter of an earl)
First Name: Diana Frances
Family Name; Windsor (as Charles was a HRH at the time of the wedding, thus his family name is only Windsor according to HM's decree)
Title (according to the rules for divorced peeresses): Princess of Wales.

Thus she was Lady Diana Frances Windsor, Princess of Wales, in short (as it is custom for divorced peeresses): Diana, Princess of Wales with a right to the Style of My Lady or Ma'am.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

If I'm not mistaken sirhon, as far as I can tell the royal.gov.uk site only refers to her as The Princess of Wales when speaking about events that took place while she actually was The Princess of Wales. Her memorial section is titled "Diana, Princess of Wales". It is confusing that they refer to her as just "The Princess" while speaking about events after the divorce, although legally it was not correct. An actual princess needs to be a princess of somewhere or something to carry the title and post-divorce Diana was legally neither The Princess of Wales, Princess Diana nor even a Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so referring to her as "The Princess" is very misleading.

Her position was different in the fact that, as mother of the future king, she retained a place as a member of the Royal Household. This didn't make her a princess. I also have a hard time believing that she stood next to Charles at State functions after the divorce, although I would be happy to be proven wrong as that would make for an interesting scenario.

Actually yes. She lost the title "The Princess of Wales". She was no longer a princess at the time of her death. There can be only one "The Princess of Wales" and it is Charles' wife or widow until the time that another Prince of Wales is created and has a wife. It is possible, although not completely accurate, to explain the unique "title" Diana, Princess of Wales using the latter as a form of surname.

A divorced duchess continues to use her previous title, preceded by her christian name, but does so as if the title were a name.

She still retained the titles she derived as the wife of Prince Charles. It was the style of HRH that she lost. It was not used as a surname, it was used in the place where a surname would usually go. There is a subtle but important difference.

You keep saying she wasn't a princess after divorce as if, somehow, repeating it will make it true. I'm sorry but that just is not the case.

Aww, why not? CNN reports here CNN - Fairy tale marriage of Charles and Diana officially over - August 28, 1996 that [quote]
... Diana, while no longer addressed as "Her Royal Highness," does remain part of the royal family with the requisite perks. And she is still a princess.
"The princess is the mother of a future king and is therefore in a unique position," a palace spokesman said earlier.[/quote

No. We'll be good when you show me a press release from BP that states that she will legally remain a Princess after the divorce. A princess of what, exactly? Repeatedly saying that she remained a princess doesn't make it true either.

I would agree that she was in a unique position. I just don't see where you quote that the "spokesman" declared her to be a Princess of Wales. I also don't see why it is ridiculous to ask for confirmation of something as important as a royal title from the office of the font of all honours.

Perhaps because it has been so widely reported that she retained the title of Princess, losing the style of HRH? Perhaps because had that been inaccurate, BP would have issued a very clear clarification?

I believe that she lost the title, but was entitled, as a divorced woman to use the style. As you very kindly brought up the former Duchess of York, I will use that example.

She is entitled to the style but not the title. If Andrew were to remarry, his wife would be the Duchess, in title and style, while Sarah would just be entitled to use the style after her name. She is not the Duchess of York any longer. Just as Diana was no longer the Princess of Wales after her divorce.

With the spectacle that was the estrangement of Diana and Charles and the divorce that followed and yes, even her death and the controversy around the entire affaire, I believe the rest of the Royal Houses have consulted with their attorneys to draw iron clad pre nups in terms of who takes what and who keeps the titles, the jewelry and the children.
On a smaller scale P Joachim and P Alexandra's divorce, forced Q Margrette's hand and she re drew the pre nup between Mary and Frederick. Even without a Panorama interview and with no one outside the DRF actually having the details, that Danish divorce caused shockwaves.
The current Royal Houses, except for Liechtenstein, were more or less forced to accept unequal brides. Does anyone think the Monarchs did not take appropriate measures to avoid losing more than face if a divorce happenned in their family?